> Though some of what you say may be true, you clearly know very few
> preachers. You are speaking on things you know little about. Your
> questioning the motives of all preachers would be like me quetioning the
> motives of all the directors of every atheistic organiziation in the world.
I'm not questioning the motives of all preachers. Don't you guys read ? I'm
saying that there are other possible reasons for being a preacher other than
money or spreading the word. Why use all ? My first words were (about
money grabbing priests) "this is an awful generalisation". The other
alternative view of your post is that you're saying I shouldn't question the
motives of preachers which is a nonsense. If you want to question the motives
of Farrell Till (for example) go ahead. He can defend himself.
I don't suggest that priests sit there and think "I know it's all nonsense
but I kinda like what I get from it". I suggest that there are possibly other
reasons, subconcious ones, for their activities.
BTW: Of course I know very few preachers (say about 20-30 I'd guess over the
years). So I'm not allowed to have an opinion then ? Is "You are speaking on
something you know very little about" a polite way of saying "I don't like
this, shut up". Love the classic attempt to deflect the 'attack' to atheism,
textbook stuff.
> I could say exactly what you just said about the power and money and
control,
> etc
I would say that virtually no "atheist leaders" (I suppose you mean Farrell
and the
Internet Infidels ?) in this sense. They don't have money pouring in, they
get far more stick than Christian leaders do (don't see Farrell promoting his
ideas on TV or Jeff Lowder attacking Christians on his own TV show). I would
agree that they could gain feelings of importance - for example it is
possible (though I do not believe it to be true) that Farrell could enjoy the
kudos he gains from producing SR.
>...However, I know better than that. Those people are their becasue they
> sincerely believe they have a message that NEEDS TO BE HEARD. Though I ay
> disagree with them, I am not going to equate them all with Ms. Madeleine O'
> Haire as she takes off with nearly 3/4 of a million dollars. I would never
> accuse Mr. Till, Mr. Barker, Mr. Stein, or any other atheist of that type
of
> motive. I'm sorry, but your post is completely misguided.
No it isn't. I missed the heyday of MMOH but having read some of the stuff
she has written she may well be "guilty as charged.". I have my doubts about
this particular instance. I'm still not sure why you think my post to be
misguided. Do you think it's incorrect or that my motives for the post are
wrong ?
I ask you the same question I ask Jerry McDonald. Do you believe the reasons
I gave to have no basis in fact ?
Paul Robson (autismuk@aol.com)